The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be exercised where an alternative remedy exists, especially in cases involving disputed facts.

Headnote:(A) Agrarian Reform Act, 1976 - Sections 4 and 8 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petitioners sought to quash the order of mutation in favor of their deceased father, claiming protected tenancy rights. The Revisional Forum set aside the mutations, citing procedural violations and remanded for a fresh inquiry. (Paras 1, 2, 6, 8)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and not to be exercised where an alternative remedy exists. The court does not engage in factual determinations or correct errors of fact in lower tribunal decisions. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed ownership of land based on mutations attested in favor of their father, who was a protected tenant. The respondents contested this, asserting co-sharer rights as heirs of the original tenant. The Revisional Forum found the mutations improperly attested and remanded for further inquiry.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the mutations were not attested in accordance with the Standing Order 23-A, necessitating a fresh inquiry by the Tehsildar.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the mutations attested in favor of the petitioners' father and whether the High Court should intervene under Article 226 given the existence of disputed facts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the exercise of writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not interfere with remand orders or disputes requiring factual determination.

Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners herein have filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the following reliefs:-

“Writ of Certiorari quashing the order passed by the respondent No. 1, in file no. STJ/426/2004 by virtue of which the revision filed by the respondent No. 04 to 11 has been allowed and set aside the order of mutation no. 570 under section 04 and 582 under section 8 of the Agrarian Reform Act 1976 attested in the year 1994 in favour of Late Hans Raj, father of the petitioner who was the protected tenant in his own capacity constituting separate family and tenant of erstwhile owners of the land falling under khasra no. 568, 571, 811, 862 and 907 situated at village Kalayanpur Tehsil Marh & District Jammu and the order passed by the respondent no. 2.

With

Further Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the land falling under Khasra no. 568, 571, 811, 862 and 907 situated at village Kalayanpur Tehsil Marh & District Jammu where the proprietary rights under section 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reform Act were conferred upon the late father of the petitioners namely Hans Raj who died during the pendency of the revision by virtue of mutation no. 570 dated 12.02.1994 and mutation no. 582 under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act.”

2. The facts on the strength of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed, as stated in the petition, are that the petitioners herein succeeded their father namely, Hans Raj upon his death who had been protected tenant of one Karam Chand in his independent capacity in respect of the land covered under Survey No. 568, 571, 811, 862 and 907 situated at Village Kalayanpur, having resulted into attestation of mutations under section 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 being Mutation Nos. 570 and 582 respectively in the year 1994 qua the said land. The said mutations came to be called in question in two appeals before respondent 2 by the respondents 8 to 11 herein being the brothers of the father of the petitioners herein besides Balwant Rai, the another brother of the petitioners’ father having died during the pendency of the petition and succeeded by respondents 4 to 7 herein. The said mutations had been challenged on the premise that the land in question was under personal cultivation of the father of the parties namely, Kaku as Tenant at Will and upon death of Kaku, all the brothers inherited their father Kaku as tenancy was inheritable and that the father of the petitioners herein got the impugned mutations attested in his favour excluding the other co-sharers being his brothers and that the mutations have had been attested in violation of law and applicable rules inasmuch as at their back. The said appeals came to be dismissed by respondent 2 herein in terms of order dated 27.09.2004 on the premise that the father of the petitioners herein had been recorded as a tenant qua the land in question independent of the land under the tenancy of his father Kaku and had been conferred he ownership rights qua the said land upon attestation of mutations under section 4 and 8 of the Act of 1976 being a separate family unit on the relevant date in the year 1971 as per the Agrarian Reforms Act of 1976. Aggrieved of the order of respondent 2 herein, the respondents herein being the appellants before respondent 2 preferred a revision petition before respondent 1 herein on 28.12.2004 on the ground that respondent 2 dismissed the appeals without considering the matter in its right perspective overlooking the fact that the father of the parties namely, Kaku was survived by 7 sons and the said Kaku was the protected tenant of the entire land since 1958-59 and upon his death, right of inheritance of tenancy vested into all his sons and that instead the father of the petitioners herein got the impugned mutations attested under section 4 and 8 illegally inasmuch as by manipulating the record and that as such, failure of respondent 2 to address to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document